美國聯邦法院關於台灣主權裁判問題──政治問題不受司法審查之意義

The Meaning of Political Questions Nonjusticiable

張瑋心

《台灣國際法季刊》 12卷1期 (2015/03) Pp. 65-96

摘要

2006年一起台灣人民控訴美國的人權保護案件，意外引致媒體扭曲事實的負面報導。美國聯邦地方法院、中級上訴審法院，均未在第一時間同意美國國務院聲請以不具司法管轄權從程序上駁回原告之訴，除暗指當事人「適格」外，亦充份展現美國司法之獨立性。雖說美國聯邦法院裁判書中沒有解釋美國對台灣之主權關係，卻在分別長達13頁的意見書中，釐清了美國為何在中國、台灣之間享有舉足輕重的角色。關於台灣主權問題，近年來因林克穎引渡案、青年學子佔領國會、我駐美代表劉姍姍虐傭案等，意外拉升台灣法理地位之疑慮。為免引發爭議，本文不代表任何政治立場，內文也不涉兩岸領土之討論，而僅就學術探究的目的，引介美國聯邦法院裁判台灣主權未定，結論「政治問題不受司法審查」的見解，冀供參考。

關鍵字

政治問題 ； 司法自制 ； 權力分立 ； 法治 ； 主權

並列摘要

There was a litigation known for Taiwanese people suing United States for human rights protection in 2006. Unexpectedly, the fact was distorted by negative media coverage. Both of US federal district court and intermediate appellate court did not consent to US Secretary's petition to deny plaintiffs' complaint for the cause of lacking jurisdiction. The courts instead granted review of the case from procedures which implies the parties' ＂standing＂ and show independent Justice in the United States. Although US Federal Courts had little words to say in the opinions that United States is over Taiwan's sovereignty, in a 13-page opinions, respectively, it clarified United States plays an important role between China and Taiwan. The issue of Taiwan's sovereignty, because of Zain Dean's extradition to Taiwan, Taiwanese students occupying Legislative Yuan in opposition to trade agreement, and slave-driving diplomat Jacqueline Liu cases in recent years, accidentally leveled up doubts to Taiwan's legitimate status. To avoid controversy, this paper does not represent any political stance or get into discussions of cross-strait territories, but introduce United States federal courts' ruling on Taiwan's sovereignty undetermined on the purpose of academic exploration, and conclude the case nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine for reference.

並列關鍵字

political question ； judicial restraint ； separation of power ； rule of law ； sovereignty

參考文獻

李念祖(2000)。再論「政治問題」理論在我國憲法解釋上之運用。台大法學論叢。29(2)，19-34。

Dr. Roger C.S. Lin, et al., v. United States of America, Civil Action No. 06-1825 (RMC)(2008)

Dr. Roger C.S. Lin, et al., v. United States of America, Activity in Case 1:06-cv-01825-RMC.

Dr. Roger C.S. Lin, et al., v. United States of America, No. 08-5078 (2009).

Birkey, Scott(1999).Gordon v. Texas and the Prudential Approach to Political Question.California Law Review.87,1265.